So, the first topic:
a few of thoughts...
1. On the issue of immigration, the candidates agree that illegal immigration is a problem, but they all seemed to have different ideas as to how to go about fixing the problem. I found this refreshing, especially because of all of the back-patting that many of the candidates did with regard to John McCain and his position on the war and his experience in the military. However, I wish there was more discussion and academic debate amongst the candidates as opposed to finger-pointing and opponent bashing. Many of them had strong ideas, but in order for anyone's idea to come to fruition, the idea needs to be fully thought through and all options should be studied. I'm not saying that any one candidate hasn't done his research, but it seemed that most of them were anxious to attack instead of being open to other insights.
2. Although Fred Thompson chose not to be a part of the debate, a statement of his regarding crime in NYC was brought up. Giuliani responded by saying that Thompson would be "safer in NYC that in Boston," a blatant attack on Romney... but why? Every answer Giuliani gives, whether it is regarding crime or not, somehow strays to how he reduced crime in "the most dangerous city." So why did he find this to be an opportunity to attack one of his opponents? It seemed to me that Rudy did a lot of attacking, and I suppose as the "national front runner" he may need to from time to time. But I found it interesting that the people he attacked the most were his closest competitors. He kissed up to John McCain, even going so far as to say that he himself would support McCain if he (the self proclaimed best candidate)were not in the race. But McCain's ship is sinking... he can't raise money, he's falling behind in the polls and one of his most steadfast supporters in Florida has even moved on to other candidates (including Rudy and Fred.)
3. How interesting was it when people in that restaurant asked questions to the candidates? This opportunity allowed NH primary voters to show their support, or lack thereof, of particular candidates and also to ask questions that they, the voters, want answered. This situation could have also given a unique insight into the minds of voters, other than what the media outlets tell us is on the voters' minds. However, I have to wonder if the questions were screened? One NH police officer let Romney know that he and his wife were highly offended by Romney's comparison of his sons working for his campaign to those who serve in the military. However, Romney had already apologized for this misstatement. I'm sure that the man and his wife were offended, but why was he put on camera? The same goes for the Poly Sci student who questioned Rudy's family life and said that Rudy's family was not of the same quality or standard as Mitt's. Why this question? Is the media actually in tune with the voters, or are the voters' minds conformed by what the media tells them they should be concerned about?
On a closing note, I leave you with this:
The course of the 2008 election will most definitely be amended because of new media (blogs, youtube, cameraphones...) For example, a huge disappointment for Senator Brownback (and his few supporters) was unveiled to the public via internet... but would as many people know of this event if it were not for www.drudgereport.com? I think not.
Link to the Brownback picture: http://news.yahoo.com/photo/070904/480/5ca0cf5624ad4cb59c18a7e2ebe0f469
Questions, Comments, Concerns welcome.
Until next time...
2 comments:
In response to 1.:
every time there is an election this attacking happens. It frustrates me to no end- I think "Who wants to hear garbage about someone else- tell us what your beliefs and plans are!". Yet as more and more elections go by, I find myself discovering that the trash talking is so a part of the electoral process, that without it I believe candidates would have MUCH less to say. This is an inherent flaw in the system that really can't be fixed. I think wemust live with it and accept it as part of the system we're in, holding out until such slander or bashing has passed.
2. I don't have much to say except I think Giuliani is not fit for the position of President. I don't think his resume' has enough experience and I think that his handling of NYC during September 11, while brilliant and well done, doesn't qualify him top be president....personally I think he's one of the bigger hypocrits.
3. "Is the media actually in tune with the voters, or are the voters' minds conformed by what the media tells them they should be concerned about?"
Yes to the latter. I find more and more, as much as I hate to say it (both because it offends me and because saying it makes me sound like a nut), that media and "them" are constantly conforming our minds to their standards. We are brainwashed with every commercial, with every advertisment, and with every campaign attack. I'm not saying "Woe is me! The end is near!" But I am saying the vast majority of us are seduced and "influenced" by "them"...and more than that, I think most people are dependant on being told what to think...though on a subconscious level.
TV cuts to attacks like the Poly Sci. major and the couple who were offended because they want us to like drama...why? because there's plenty of it.
I mean, it's even turning us into such sensitive peoples that we get "offended" at a comment like Romney made about his sons serving on the campaign trail. I mean really--- someone was OFFENDED by that?
These are just some rants (that had little to do with what you talked about, I know), but I hope you see some spark of inteligence in them.
:)
PS. Sorry about all the mis-spellings and grammar errors- it's late and I am too tired to use the trusty ole' spell checker.
poor brownback, that sucks
Post a Comment